Criminal Justice Trends Evaluation - Research Paper Example

The rising number of criminalities and the complexity of the nature of crimes is achallenge for the criminal justice system of the United States of America since it’s apparently bearing the cudgels of burning issues on injustices and inability to effectively exercise a model that can fully deter or prevent the commission of crimes. In all political discourse, the social injustices and its implied effects to those that are in a marginal social status or conditions are widely deliberated, especially from those that are empirically experiencing poor access to the justice system. This paper will discuss contemporary issues on criminal justice system and its value in a rapidly changing society. The crime levels involving cases of robbery, homicide, illegal drugs and other violent crimes statistically increased based on research data (Shaw, van Dijk, & Rhomberg, 2003). Anent to social injustices concerns are problems too on sex trade, (inclusive on problems on prostitution and pornography where the flesh trade considered consenting adults as ‘victimless crimes’ that are subject of ‘moral panics’) and of white collar crimes that ranges from forgery, corruption, identity theft using electronic devices, and money laundering. It’s unfortunate that white collar criminals, when caught, are not served with penal sentences but are only required to pay for the damages done to victims. Aside from the preceding prominent crimes, the United States is also confronted with crimes that have magnitude effects to civilian communities and to the state. Terrorism along with so called white collar crimes are also considered to be criminal offences, though sociologists consider the aforementioned to be ‘political crimes’ (Mueller, 2013). The entailing consequences that marginalized further the affected communities encourage group to launch offensive attacks that, unfortunately, are correlated to Islamic faith and got funding services from illegal drug traders (Mueller, 2013). Serious anti-terror action is undertaken to respond on this problem because attacks can be done using biological weapons, anthrax, bomb threats, chemical incidents, use of explosives, radicalization of rebellious group, use of radiological threat, falsification of documents and other entailing effects that could victimize large number of civilian populace (National Counterterrorism Center, 2013). The Federal Bureau of Investigation likewise stated in its reports based on collated information from law enforcement agencies that there is an increase of 1.9 % of violent crimes in the last six months in 2012 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). These violent crime cover murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. With regards to the property crimes, there is an increased of 1.5 percent in 2012 compared to the reported statistics in 2011 that include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). Bank crimes statistics also showed that in 2011 alone, there are 5,014 robberies, 60 burglaries, and 12 larcenies which looted about $ 38.3 million dollars of cash and other valuable properties (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). Only 20% of these cases are recovered or solved by law enforcement authorities (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). According to statistical records, there are 6,088 persons involved in varied bank crime cases but only 3,263 persons are identified, of which 1,229 of 37% are involved in narcotics and 583 persons or 18% are recidivists of robbery, bank burglary and bank larceny cases (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). Aside from the increase of statistics on crimes, the advancement of information technology also made it easier for the commission of crimes since most of the transactions are done online and the criminals’ coordination or communication hasten their networking or their plans of carrying out their criminal designs (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). Crimes can be undertaken by doing spam, phishing emails and malwares. Due to information technology, criminals can also become knowledgeable on victims culture, sports, and their past times (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). Using cyber space as its criminal plots, they are also able to internationalize their crimes specially in advancing their interest on drug trafficking, money laundering, and sex crimes using transnational criminal partners (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). Experts opined that the U.S. Department of Justice takes a leading role in the interagency development of early crime prevention efforts. They proposed that there should be community-based program for close interaction with parents noted to be “high risk for abusing, neglecting, or inadequately providing for the needs of their children” (Winslow & Zhang, 2008, p. 5); increasing support for educational daycare programs with home visitation component for at-risk infants and children; and improving the intervention for children and adolescents that are legally entitled of their safety and wholesome development. This can be strategically demonstrated by U.S. Department of Justice by enforcing early prevention and intervention program that aimed at supervising parents under the justice system e.g. criminal justice system, juvenile justice system, and family courts (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). Promoting family-based intervention for those known of its risky behaviors to contribute in the reduction of crimes committed by parents and prevent the cycle of criminal behavior among adolescents or juvenile offenders. It is also vital that after school hours, there must be community-based activities that are providing opportunity for youths to avail seminars on “conflict resolution, mentoring, and employment programs, as well as anti-violence” (Winslow & Zhang, 2008, p. 6) creative educative processes. While it’s worth appreciating to highlight the contribution of the federal government in addressing serious concern on transnational crimes and of terrorism, it is likewise essential to promote interagency collaboration for crime prevention and for educative needs for reformation processes. Robinson (2009) proposed that for justice to be enjoyed too socially, where members can enjoy their political society with liberal democracy, the courts should, in the distribution of penalty to offenders and for retribution, must have sufficient allocation for dispensation of their functions equitably; increase the representation by racial and ethnic minorities in court; impartially balance the system within the court by reassigning sentence discretion to judges instead of prosecutors; disallow preventive detention on the bases of a broad reason of ‘protecting the community’ unless sufficient evidence showed high flight risk; and establishment of systematic bailing system based on the capacity of the accused and such bailing system must be sustainably evaluated to ascertain that this will not be discriminatory to persons. Robinson (2009) further suggested reviewing the intention of plea bargaining to ascertain that that the right to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is duly observed and exercised as part of the Miranda doctrine. Fairness should be accorded to indigent clients who cannot afford quality legal services by establishing incentives to serve the poor zealously (Robinson, 2009). It was also recommended that jurors should be selected from sources and not from voters list because majority of these voters allegedly do not vote (Robinson, 2009). The jury shouldn’t be corrupted by jurors without adequate cause and hence, the court must not use peremptory challenges in jury selection (Robinson, 2009). Anent thereto, it is perceived wise to provide adequate financial compensation for jurors to encourage their participation in the dispensation of justice (Robinson, 2009). It is also suggested that court should not use jury as consultants during voir dire to maintain fair trial (Robinson, 2009). In an unconventional perception about the role of the state, Robinson (2009) discourage belief that the judicial system can effectively deliver deterrence of criminality because some social deviants and criminally –minded madmen in the society are no longer afraid of committing crimes. The three-strike laws should only be enforced for recidivists but not to youth offenders who still bear the right chance to reform (Robinson, 2009). For the bureau of corrections, Robinson (2009) likewise suggested that immediate sanctions should be considered as cost-effective alternatives for prison. The prisons condition should also be humanized to minimize and education that can improve the technical skills of prisoners to make them competent nonetheless albeit their crimes and to still make them responsible being when they will be integrated back in the society after serving their penalties (Robinson, 2009). The parole officers’ organization should likewise improve their capacity in relating with prisoners and in maintaining a positive perspective for the interest of the prisoners (Robinson, 2009). Collaborative efforts with other agencies, e.g. health, social services, and well-being of the imprisoned, are to be made (Robinson, 2009). While death penalty is not sanctioned in US court, but the ultimate lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole and restitution for its victims is wise enough to be considered as capital punishment (Robinson, 2009). There are many things yet to be undertaken to reform the criminal justice system. The court and its advocates must strengthen the weak correlation of law enforcement and judicial action to cases if the state is genuinely interested in fast tracking the delivery of justice to many victims of crime and justice for the communities that have been continually besieged by security threats (Robinson, 2009). As John Rawls, a philosopher on social justice once said, “each person has an indisputable claim to fully enjoy equal basic liberties and to enjoy social and economic equalities to make it truly beneficial for people who have the least advantage for the enjoyment of these opportunities and fair equality” (Robinson, 2009). References Federal Bureau of Investigation (2013). Bank Crime Statistics (BCS): Federally Insured Financial Institutions (January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011), US: Department of Justice, p. 1. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011 Jaishankar, K (2009). International Perspectives on Crime and Justice, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mueller III, R.S (2013), Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2012, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. p. 1 National Counterterrorism Center (2013). Methods and Tactics, Counter Terrorism Calendar, US: NCTC, p. 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/index3.html Robinson, M.B. (2009). Justice Blind? Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice Third Edition, US: Pearson Education, pp. 445-465. Shaw, M., van Dijk, J. & Rhomberg, W. (2003), Determining Trends in Global Crime and Justice: An Overview of Results from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, Forum on Crime and Society, vol. 3, Nos. 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Justice (2013). National Institute of Justice Critical Criminal Justice Issues: Task Force Reports From the American Society of Criminology, US: Office of Justice Programs, pp. 1-135. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/158837.pdf Winslow, R. & Zhang, S. (2008). Criminology: A global perspective, US: Pearson, Prentice Hall, p. 10-757. Read More